Funky rigid bodies
-
Physics in C4D act very inconsistent when simulating with a linear array of clones (bouncing in random speeds and heights).
Scene attached:
maxon physics errors 03.c4dPS: I also got in touch with the maxon support but as they usually file a bug that takes years to fix, I am wondering if someone has a quick hint.
-
...when increasing the substeps, the simulation becomes more accurate for the first 2 seconds. But the viewport playback performance drops significantly.
scene:
maxon physics errors 03 (substeps 100).c4d -
...increasing the angular damping also helps a bit in combination with 100 substeps (maybe trajectory force shifts to rotational force). But after a few more seconds, the simulation gets random again, even without rotation.
-
Please allow a little delay in answering, I was integrated in a deadline project.
-
Thank you for the files, reading-card.
I see your setup, and the initial set up idea is sound. No question. Well, a few points, the Scale parameter was not set, and so the spheres were very small in contrast. Bounce values over 1.0 are physically not possible. But I assume that is done only to magnify the problem, I can understand that. I'm not interested in arguing here:
In short - and from my private perspective - that is the difference between physical correct, and physical plausible.
To take another example, Global Illumination takes a few bounces to get the light close to what real light does. Real light might bounce trillion times around, and is not on its final end, going by values in light-years, etc. Hence why I hesitate to call it photorealistic, or even physical correct, from a science or engineering point of view. However, from an artist point of view, the idea about simulation is to find the best balance between the amount of calculation and visual effect. I consider this application a Visual Artist app first, and with that, the optimization moved toward it.
As I mentioned, I'm not arguing here, just sharing a viewpoint, nor do I have any interest in taking any position here; this is my private take on it.
If that is not along how you think it should be, the only way is either to suggest to Maxon ("Share Your Idea") here:
https://www.maxon.net/en/support-center
Or with the same URL, submit a ticket that things are not OK from your perspective and that you need to have it differently.
Since the needed calculation would require, again from my point of view, a massive cloud computing, and I assume only a few people have the patience to do it with off-the-shelf computers.
Again, I can see your point and the clarity in your setup, but explore this file to see how much things change when the parameters are more aligned. Is it 100% physical perfect? No, and it will not be, based on how one defines the terms plausible or perfect. Anyway, if that is a problem, then that night needed a change of code, not just a few parameter changes. I can’t change that.
Example:
CV4_2026_drs_26_SIsq_01.c4dMy best wishes
-
Thanks for the scene. I do not expect 100% correct physics simulations, nor do I want to argue on that. However, the setup I tested illustrates huge deviations from what one would expect from a very simple simulation according to the basic principles of physics calculation. Considering the amount of parameters available in Maxon's physics, it is a quite alerting that even the simplest laws of physics are not reproducable.
It seems to be a common issue with recent C4D's releases that functions are not working as expected when applied differently than advertised in Maxon's tutorials and samples. That's a huge restriction for artists who are intended to use the software more creatively and lead to results that are rather driven by software developers than creativity. This contrasts the approach of functions such as MoGraph, where developers created robust, modular system, which provided a huge freedom for new creative applications even beyond the imagination of the developers. When I use C4D now, I spend 80% of my time on finding workarounds for bugs rather than creativity, which can be quite frustrating sometimes.
-
Hi reading.-card,
I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts and the way you approach C4D from a creative and artistic perspective. Your point about how MoGraph opened up possibilities beyond what even the developers imagined really resonates with me — that’s the kind of freedom that fuels unique work. I completely agree that creativity should be the main focus; in fact, I believe that we are moving into a time where Art is the main center of the needed skillset. Having been a demo artist back then on day one (MoGraph Premiere, NAB in Las Vegas, NV) of MoGraph in 2006, I have seen, since then, for nearly two decades, a lot of breathtaking results, and it doesn’t stop: Thanks to Artists like you!
I understand the friction about things not working as they should. I’m typically happy to search for workarounds, but anything that feels like a coding problem needs to go to tech support, which is the closest and most serious direct next step to the development team. I do not shortcut that, as those communication channels are defined. Either way, if it is a problem, tech support, or if it is an idea or vision of how it should work, same URL, but the “Share Your Idea”. Thanks for considering.
I’m sure no one likes problems to lower the Artistic Flow Experience, and creative and artistic visions are welcome, especially when expressed in a request; Here is the URL again:
https://www.maxon.net/en/support-centerHave a great weekend
